It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 334
377
<< 331  332  333    335  336  337 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


This is for you and Foosm if the picture was correctly exposed for stars you could not have the surface or astronaut and landers in view you claim you know about photography so you should know why!!! we all know Foosm hasn't got a clue.

As for the film speed 6000asa film would not be used for taking pictures on the surface its far to fast for something lit by the sun.

We saw the picture of the exposure data on the film back so we know from the settings that was not 6000asa.




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



You are right! You, and others here, have successfully convinced me that the Astronauts
were well trained, well information, well equipped, and well supported by mission control to successfully provide the public with astrophotography from the moon.


Wrong. We have tried to explain to you why it would not be possible to photograph stars from the Moon without long, impractical exposures.


Therefore my original conclusion still stands.
There was absolutely no excuse for the lack of astrophotography by the Astronauts.
It could have been done, it should have been done.


As I pointed out before, it was done, with a UV telescope on the surface:



And a 35 mm Nikon SLR in orbit:












Apollo gegenschein photography.

Now, with your vast knowledge of photography, would you kindly explain why the Nikon photographs look so blurry and, well, useless? Do you understand why the astronauts wouldn't bother to even try to take pictures of the stars from the lunar surface?


Thanks


You're welcome.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Actually I asked before about star pics in the CM while out of sunlight..

On the moon I'd like to have seen more pics of Earth..
There are only a couple and they aint that good...



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



Actually I asked before about star pics in the CM while out of sunlight..

On the moon I'd like to have seen more pics of Earth..
There are only a couple and they aint that good...


Well, there are your star pictures from the CM. The priority on the lunar surface was documenting the Moon, not the Earth. They took panoramas of the landscape and pictures of the samples in situ. The photographs of the LM and equipment were for the benefit of the engineers who wanted to see what wear and tear the LM took, There were a few "vacation snaps." of course, and a flag raising event for the sponsor. Note how few of these "commercials" there are. If the lunar landings were supposed to be a big propaganda initiative the astronauts weren't doing their job very well. Not one of them said the "Pledge of Allegiance" or sang the national anthem.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Not one of them said the "Pledge of Allegiance" or sang the national anthem.


That's outright unpatriotic


Shame, like I said that would have been perfect proof..



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
They could tell just by looking at lens. It would look something like this:



Originally posted by FoosM

Thats right, with that reflective coating it would sure easy to see those tiny numbers in that blazing sun. And no to mention your vision is improved with the fact that your visor is cutting 80-90% of your light, that sure helps too.

And lets not forget if you turn into towards your shadow, you have to dark adapt, and light adapt when you turn back towards the sun. We also have many examples of astronauts taking off their cameras to inspect their lenses for their settings.


I have to agree with Foos again, things just aren't adding up.

So they either looked and verified all 4 parameters on their cameras before taking the pics, or they felt the notches as they moved the tiny paddles.

Based upon the photo below I doubt they could have done either.
The paddles were too small, (see arrow below) and the indicators on the camera were too small and too far away.

For them to have had to do either before taking a picture just strengthens the argument that they took far too many photos in relation to the time they had available. I've posted a reference to the time and motion study before about this.



You have to remember the moon is a very different environment to earth with it's harsh light and dark shadows. They had a lot to contend with. Lessons in photography on earth wouldn't have sufficed.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


I know you have claimed to but have YOU actually used either an slr or medium format camera like a Hasselblad?



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


SO what is a hires picture to you, please give an example of what you think will see what you post and from were!



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
I"m saying I.............have ..................dish ...........network.........and @ 22,000ft............i........can ..look at the ............entire earth from ......Dish Networks SAT. LOL..

check it yourself.. it's on channgle 276 LM*O~!! DOH !!!
Sorry, I don't have Dish Network and I can't see channgle 276.

Are you saying that Dish Network's satellites are at an altitude of 22,000ft? Because they're much closer to an altitude of 22,000 miles (116,160,000 feet). Doh indeed.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
I'll say again, I'm NOT talking about the LM oxygen. It's all about the amount of BREATHABLE air the needed JU*ST TO survive the 6 day ordeal~!
All they had was oxygen. The atmosphere was pure oxygen at 5 psi. The suits were pure oxygen at 3.8 psi.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
On the photographic (im)possibilities...

1. At the time of Apollo, the number of hoax believers was rather small... so why would NASA want an (impossible to take) image of astronauts, earth and stars, even if it was possible? It's already been proven that there is no scientific point taking star pics in visible light from the daylit lunar surface.

2. a. Assuming we keep the aperture at f5.6, an exposure that would register any stars would require at least 15 seconds, preferably 30 to even get tiny pinpricks of light recorded on the film. (Even a small focus error would render those stars invisible.

2. b. The lunar surface lit by the Sun, the astronauts, the LM, and the Earth all required an exposure of about 1/125 or 1/250 of a second.

2. c. The 50mm lens would be a very poor choice for earth imaging - it is a wide angle lens, and the earth's globe subtends only a very small angle.

2. d. If the shot was taken at say 15 seconds, it would require the camera to be mounted on a tripod or something equally stable - not handheld or chest mounted..

2. e. If the shot was taken at say 15 seconds, the astronauts, any lunar surface, and any area of the film that was touched by even small traces of lens flare (this was the Achilles heel of the Hasselblads)or stray light, would be wiped out - blazing white, overexposed, completely washed out, any stars completely obliterated. (This is largely why earthly telescopes do not do visible light imaging in daytime..)

2. f. If the shot was taken at say 1/125 of a second, the stars would not have a hope in heck of being recorded. (actually, there is one exception, but it's a planet - you will *just* be able to detect Venus, if you are lucky... which raises an interesting story - Google it)

In other words, you CANNOT possibly take an image showing both the daylit astronauts and the stars.. Even the astro's in shadow would be far too bright for an exposure sufficently long to record stars. There's this thing called 'dynamic range'...


For anyone who doubts this, feel free to verify it with a photographer, or do a simple experiment. In your brightly lit kitchen at night (whch is MUCH dimmer than a sunlit scene), take an image that includes a good part of the kitchen, and also the window, looking out at the stars... Post your results here...



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I mean, look at the ground that's in shadow..
You see hardly any detail at all..
Yet the LM is very clear.


It's got all that bright ground around it is providing a fill light.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
I then tried to blame the astronauts, saying that they were hampered by their suits, lighting conditions on the moon, dust, etc.
But then all the Apollo defenders came and claimed how easy it was to shoot photos from the hip, how easy it was to manipulate the settings of the cameras to get the correct exposures. They even came up with the example of photographers managing to get great shots right in the middle of a war.

I tell you, considering the statements made the last few pages, I think Apollo defenders should be up in arms wondering where all these photos with stars in them are? I mean, you guys have done a better job explaining why it simply makes no sense that there no stars in any of the photos.
So I think we are all, on both sides in agreement.


No, I don't think we're in agreement. You claimed the cameras were modified in some way to specifically make photographing stars impossible. I pointed out that this wasn't true. However, that doesn't mean they had the necessary equipment to take photos of stars. The camera is but one piece of the equation. Even at the camera's most sensitive configuration (f/5.6 with ASA 6000 film), it would still take an exposure time of at least 30 seconds to get a good image of stars. It is simply impossible to hand-hold a camera for that long and get a sharp image. Heck, even with my fancy vibration reduction lenses, I don't shoot with my camera at a shutter speed longer than 1/30th of a second hand-held because of the drop in sharpness. They would absolutely need a tripod of some sort, which they did not have.

Now why didn't they have it? Because astrophotography was not a priority while they were on the surface of the moon. Any visible-spectrum pictures they would get of stars would be little different than what could taken on earth. In fact, on earth, with a camera on an equatorial mount, you'd be able to take better pictures because you can track the stars for very long exposure times. While they were on the surface of the moon they took pictures that could not be replicated back on earth... pictures of the surface. That was their priority, and it makes total sense.




Originally posted by FoosM
Lets move on to how those astronauts managed to close the door of the LM while they were conducting their EVA. And, when did those astronauts go into LM to check it, after it was first docked to the CMS.


Why don't you do some research on that and get back to us.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55


I have to agree with Foos again, things just aren't adding up.

So they either looked and verified all 4 parameters on their cameras before taking the pics, or they felt the notches as they moved the tiny paddles.

Based upon the photo below I doubt they could have done either.
The paddles were too small, (see arrow below) and the indicators on the camera were too small and too far away.

For them to have had to do either before taking a picture just strengthens the argument that they took far too many photos in relation to the time they had available. I've posted a reference to the time and motion study before about this.



You have to remember the moon is a very different environment to earth with it's harsh light and dark shadows. They had a lot to contend with. Lessons in photography on earth wouldn't have sufficed.



Camera pic



What 4 parameters, Lets see they are in the LM about to leave a take pictures will it be cloudy no, will it rain no, will the sun be out YES. Two things needed for correct exposure shutter speed & aperture, to suit film speed which they could not change.

As explained with numerous links to pictures and other web sites for the hard of LEARNING focus could be taken care off using DEPTH OF FIELD. Shutter speed could be preset before leaving and depending on position of the sun the shutter speed varied between 1/125th or 1/250th of a second you are trying to make it sound really complicated and since YOU seem to have never ACTUALLY used a camera of any type you cant really comment.

Also looking at the picture above the paddles were big enough!

edit on 28-1-2011 by wmd_2008 because: spelling



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
So they either looked and verified all 4 parameters on their cameras before taking the pics, or they felt the notches as they moved the tiny paddles.
They wouldn't have to verify all 4 things before every picture. They'd only need to verify if they had forgotten the what they left the settings on. For a lot of photographs, they'd just leave the settings alone for a series. The most they'd have to change the settings were when doing a pan, where'd they'd have to change just the aperture a whopping 4 times at most.


Originally posted by ppk55
The paddles were too small, (see arrow below) and the indicators on the camera were too small and too far away.
How are the paddles too small? They're certainly big enough to nudge with a finger to thumb tip. And the indicators are too far away? They're like a foot and a half from their eyes. I can read at that distance, and my eyesight is less than spectacular.


Originally posted by ppk55
You have to remember the moon is a very different environment to earth with it's harsh light and dark shadows. They had a lot to contend with. Lessons in photography on earth wouldn't have sufficed.
Pretty much all they had to contend with is looking at the top of the film canister to remember what to set the camera at. It's really not that difficult.




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


BiB, you need some perspective.

First, this (and earlier, you said you "wanted" a pic of the Astros, with the Earth and stars in the backgrund).


On the moon I'd like to have seen more pics of Earth....



Would have been pretty...but would have been OBVIOUSLY wrong!!

Do you have Google Earth, with the Moon add on? If not, go to any online map that shows the locations of the Apollo landing sites. They were all nearly equatorial, Apollo 17 was the furthest North, but only to about 26N:

Here, found one:

That is the view of the hemisphere of the Moon that always faces Earth! SO, perspective now:

Imagine YOU are on the Moon. Where do you think the Earth will be, in your "sky"???


See, now, why a photo from the surface of a portrait of a person, with landscape in background, AND with the earth in the background also wasn't feasible???



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I have more respect for the Astronauts after having watched this:
www.youtube.com...

*note, some coarse language*

Though of course I can't blame the astronauts for being angry for being ambushed by an obnoxious jerk.

edit on 28-1-2011 by Facefirst because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
2. d. If the shot was taken at say 15 seconds, it would require the camera to be mounted on a tripod or something equally stable - not handheld or chest mounted..


Maybe we should add to this the rule of thumb: when shooting 35/fx format you shouldn't shoot handheld at speed less than the focal lenght. For medium format you can half that.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by FoosM
 


You know, for me, 100% UNDENIABLE PROOF that man was on the Moon would be pics, taken on the moon with an astronaut, Earth and maybe stars in the background..

All Apollo missions had pics with accurate time stamps and we knew when they were there anyway..

With a GOOD pic of Earth it would be simple to chech what view of Earth would be visible from their position..
We could even check weather patterns for that day...

I have seen no pics that would be suitable..
Anyone know if there is any????


Here is the problem.
How can you determine if the Earth is not cut and pasted into the photograph?
With the sky being black, its easy to fake.
Satellites could have been taken photos of earth in LEO and then used to compose several of the
Apollo photographs.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Oh, I had promised myself to stop feeding....but:


Satellites could have been taken photos of earth in LEO and then used to compose several of the
Apollo photographs.


THAT is truly hilarious, and a soon-to-be-classic!

Thanks for the chuckle.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 331  332  333    335  336  337 >>

log in

join